H&L Lawyer, Joyce Ling, Successful on the Supreme Court Procedure to Setting Aside Separation Agreements

BC Supreme Court Confirms Procedure to Initiate Proceeding to Set Aside Separation Agreements Engaging Both Property Disputes and Spousal Support

By: Alfonso Chen (Articled Student)

When relationships come to an end, and when the involved parties nonetheless decide to cooperate with one another to avoid heading to court to resolve their disputes, the parties can often agree on important terms in a written agreement called a “separation agreement”. Within this agreement, the parties can resolve the issues on child and spousal support payments and the division of family property and debts.

The Supreme Court of British Columbia (“BCSC”) recently issued a judgment confirming the proper procedure in initiating a case where one seeks to set aside a separation agreement. Accepting the in-court arguments of Henderson & Lee lawyer, Ms. Joyce Ling, the BCSC has confirmed that the proceeding for a case where one seeks to set aside a separation agreement, involving both property disputes and spousal support, can be commenced by filing a requisition and attaching a Separation Agreement pursuant to Rule 2-1 of the Supreme Court Family Rules, B.C. Reg. 169/2009 [ “Family Rules” ]; and thereafter filing a Notice of Application under Rules 10-5(1) and 10-5(2), instead of a notice of family claim. While not constituting legal advice, this article guides the reader with a simple discussion of the decision of Li v Zhu, 2018 BCSC 2182 (“Li”).

The respondent argued “that the primary issues between the parties are almost exclusively related to property and s. 93 of the [Family Law Act]… [and] that the claimant should not be permitted to “shoehorn” this family case into Rule 2-1 just because spousal support is also raised”: Li, at para 31. Though the court found that the respondent’s submissions were persuasive, the court ultimately dismissed the respondent’s objection to the form of proceeding. Notably, the court considered the earlier judgments of Halliday v Halliday, 2015 BCCA 82, and Kler v Kang, 2018 BCSC 1136, and stated that “there were property issues identified in both proceedings. I am unable to ignore the weight of the authority that binds this court”: Li, at para 39.

In addition, in response to the respondent’s submission that she would be “prejudiced by this manner of proceeding because there is no obligatory [judicial case conference], the respondent cannot demand particulars, the claimant need not provide a list of documents, and the claimant need not respond to notices to admit”: Li, at para 40, the court pointed out several court procedures available to the respondent. The court, agreeing with Ms. Ling, stated “that this manner of proceeding is consistent with the object of the Family Rules, as emphasized in Halliday: to assist the parties to resolve their legal issues in a family law case fairly and in a way that will secure the just, speedy and inexpensive determination of every family law case on its merits”: Li, at para 41.

The decision in Li clarifies the procedure to initiate proceedings to set aside separation agreements. While proceedings to set aside separation agreements are unfortunately almost bound to continue to arise in the future, having a greater clarity in what the procedure is to initiate such proceedings may shorten the process for those proceedings to meet the objects of the Family Rules. 

The legal process may be daunting to many. Should you feel the need to find legal representation or advice on family law matters or other legal matters, Ms. Joyce Ling is always looking forward to helping others navigate through the legal process.

隐瞒家庭财产信息可能面临的法律后果

《BC省高院家庭法规》规定,离婚时,当事人双方有义务向对方真实,全面,如期提供在律师面前发誓签署的财务报告。不履行这一法律义务可能面对如下法律后果:

调查取证令 – 《高院家庭法规》允许一方当事人代理律师向隐瞒财务信息的一方当事人发出通知,要求对方参加进一步调查取证程序,包括“承认相关事实”,“询问调查会议”,“讯问”等。 如果被要求调查或讯问的当事人配合,经代理律师申请,法院有权命令该当事人参加上述调查取证程序。如果当事人违反法院命令不参加调查取证,法院有权直接做出对该当事人不利的判决。

禁止令 – 当一方当事人能提供被隐瞒财产的信息时,法院有权发布禁止令,禁止隐瞒财产的一方和相关的金融机构转移,变卖,交换,转让家庭财产。 违反禁止令的当事人将面临法院更严重的处罚,可能会面临监禁。 同时,法院有权直接做出对该当事人不利的判决。

全球禁止令 – 2017年BC省法院在Devathasan对Devathasan一案中,命令隐瞒财产的一方开庭审理结束之前,不得处理全球范围内的所有财产,包括加拿大,美国和亚洲的财产。同样,如果在发布命令后,法院认为有证据证明该当事人违反禁止令,法院将对违反命令人采取更严重处罚,甚至有权直接做出对该当事人不利的判决。

估算收入 – 案件当事人拒绝提供收入信息的,法院可能按照家庭开支的以往记录或隐瞒收入一方的以往收入记录推算该当事人的收入,并命令该当事人依照被估算的收入支付子女抚养费或配偶赡养费。

相反推论 – 省法院在2008年Laxton对Coglon一案和2014年Rana对Rana一案中确定,法院有权依赖隐瞒财产一方隐瞒的财产和收入的情况,在开庭审理后做出对隐瞒财产一方相反的结论。这样的结论可能会导致隐瞒财产一方失去分割在加拿大已经披露的财产的机会。

作者:李黎律师

2018年01月2日

【了解加国法律动态,增强个人法律意识,登录捍理网站微信,阅读更多更新博客】

BC法院对“非家庭财产”的判定原则

2013年3月BC省《家庭法》将“非家庭财产”定义为:家庭关系开始前各自的财产,家庭关系存续期间各自收到的遗产,个人礼物,某些法院判决的补偿金,调解金,保险公司赔付的保险金,家庭关系开始前各自的债务。依照《家庭法》,家庭关系终止时,双方不对“非家庭财产”进行分割。

?家庭关系存续期间,“非家庭财产”价值增长的,增值的部分是否属于家庭财产?属于。

判例:2013年省高院在Bressette对Henderson一案中确定:婚姻伴侣和依法认定的普通法伴侣,对家庭关系存续期间各自“非家庭财产”增值的部分,应该按照家庭共同财产平均分配。

?家庭关系存续期间,“非家庭财产”和家庭财产混合在一起,或“非家庭财产”被双方按家庭财产使用的,该“非家庭财产”是否因此而成为家庭财产?一般不会。

判例:2014年省高院在Remmen对Remmen一案中确定:只要一方能证明其在家庭关系开始之前对“非家庭财产”的所有权,即使该“非家庭财产”在关系存续期间被登记在双方名下,该“非家庭财产”也不属于家庭共同财产。

?双方在婚前财产协议中明确表示不分割彼此的“非家庭财产”,而在家庭关系存续期间有些“非家庭财产”被作为家庭财产使用的,该“非家庭财产”是否会成为家庭共同财产?不会。

判例:2015年省高院在Jaszczewska对Kostanski一案中确定:判定“非家庭财产”是否变为家庭共同财产时,法院将充分尊重双方的自主意愿,如签署合法有效的婚前财产协议。

?家庭关系存续期间,一方将自己的“非家庭财产”赠与给另一方的,该“非家庭财产”是否因此而成为家庭财产?可能会。

判例:2016年省高院在V.J.F.对S.K.W.一案中确定: 一方将自己的“非家庭财产”登记在另一方个人名下并将该“非家庭财产”用于家庭用途的,该“非家庭财产”转化为家庭财产。

?法院在审理家庭案件时,是否有权判决分割一方的“非家庭财产”?有权。

判例:2017年省高院在Dheenshaw对Gill一案中确定: 如果法院在审理案件时认为,依照家庭关系的长短和双方在关系存续期间对“非家庭财产”的态度,不分割“非家庭财产”对一方明显不公平的,法院可以判决分割“非家庭财产。”

 

作者:李黎律师

2017年12月29日

【了解加国法律动态,增强个人法律意志,登录捍理网站微信,阅读更多更新博客】